CIICPD 2023

failure has the function of a plan break and ends with the decision of the group to proceed in another way (“we decided to skip this part” (line 10)). This decision can be considered as a result (line 10–12). With “I still don’t know” (line 12), the narrator comes to the coda, uttering a hypothesis about the reason for the conflict, which is also represented in the title. The self-representation of the narrator is characterised by the negotiation of the dilemma of being a competent project leader and not fulfilling this task with respect to the work instructions leading to the failure. Therefore, the narrator underlines several times his/ her efforts and high responsibility. First, s/he stressed that s/he as the leader made the effort “to distribute the tasks equally” (line 1–2), then, s/he also mentioned his/her intention to distribute the roles according to the individual interests (“which tasks may fit best for whom” (line 2)), as well as to make sure all participants agree (“asked everyone if he/she is fine with the task” (line 3)). The dilemma comes to its climax in the complication as the sentence “I send him a link in advance” (line 7) has the function of an exculpation. In the second part of the complication, the narrator admits indirectly that even his/her new work instruction (“I thanked him for his contribution and friendly asked the student to add some of his own experience to the document” (line 7–8)) was not successful. As a result of this dilemma, the representation of him/ her as a leader disappears in the group identity markers using first person plural (“we decided” (line 10): “we were looking for” (line 11)). In the coda, the dilemma reappears as a meta-reflection on the comprehensibility of his/her criticism. The movements from “uniqueness and conformity” and from “high versus low agency” 19 can easily be observed (Bamberg, 2012: 104–105). The team is presented as “international” (line 5) and as a group of high agency in being able to take common decisions and to develop new strategies (“we decided to skip this part and do a questionnaire” (line 10)). In contrast “the one team member” is on the one hand positioned as unique (“because it was important for our international team to gain some first-hand experience of one student studying at this specific university” (line 5–6)) and on the other hand as a failure. The narrator expresses clearly that “the one student” does not fulfil the expectations and utters his/her frustration twice using the negative adverbial expressions “just copied” (line 6) and “just shortened” (line 8). It is not clear at all whether “the one team member” is further considered as a part of the “group-we” or excluded. In the whole narrative, there are no traces of stereotyping and culturalisation. Stimuli for further pedagogical use: – Describe and discuss the characteristics of an ideal group leader. – The group leader sent a link of the home university of “the one team member” to “the one team member”. How do you perceive this part of the work instruction? Formulate a work instruction for the task of “the one team member”. – What is “friendly” criticism? Look for examples in the text. – You are the group leader and you receive the failed result. Formulate your critique.

19 Translated by the authors.

60